Admiral or General?

[spmetla]

I voted neither. Both jobs entail a lot of responsibility but that responsibility is also passed down to subordinates. While both are responsible for vast amounts of equipment and men they do so through a chain of command which should mean that they are operating through a manageable number of people.

[Tabuu]

So did I. Neither is a good choice if you're taking too long. (Or if you start thinking, "Gah!") Otherwise you have to make a choice. Mine was neither. "Gah!" was good choice!

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Admiral, because it is harder to keep contact with the captains of the ships once the battle begins.

[Karl08]

I think logistics is a far more complex and difficult problem for the general. The ship carries its own supplies and depends on either ports or supply vessels to replenish them. On land, however, carrying supplies requires carts/wagons/trucks/etc., that is, you have to bring extra stuff along simply to allow you to take extra stuff along. A ship, on the other hand, is its own container, and will not be slowed down by its supplies. Nor does it have to stop in order to rest its men, or spend a lot of energy setting up camp. And weather will far more significantly hamper movement on land than on sea, especially when considering the ocean has but one terrain (water) whereas on land you have all sorts. Hills, forests, valleys, mountains, rivers, swamps, etc. etc. And it is also arguably easier to have one's supply lines cut on land than by sea, at any rate.

[Audacia]

Modern era=General

With the lack of radio communication in the 18th and 19th centuries however, I might lean Admiral

[The Lurker Below]

went with neither. todays theater commanders come from the ranks of any of the eligible services, including the coast guard (speaking for U.S.)
the logistic, personnel, and political considerations for any of the branches is so considerable that (for the most part) only extremely compitent leaders emerge at the top.

historically without doubt the most difficult was ADMIRAL - for evidence let's look back at the discussion on empires. It took a great deal of determination to make an overseas occupation succeed in the past, few countries made it happen for an extended period of time. We can look at most any country and find "great" generals, only in a select few are their admirals successful enough to get equivelant press.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While both are challenging, I think that the difficulty of naval construction as compared to mustering troops makes the admiral's task one involving higher risk.

I remember Churchill writing about Jellicoe that Jellicoe was "the only person on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon."

[Karl08]

went with neither. todays theater commanders come from the ranks of any of the eligible services, including the coast guard (speaking for U.S.)
the logistic, personnel, and political considerations for any of the branches is so considerable that (for the most part) only extremely compitent leaders emerge at the top.

historically without doubt the most difficult was ADMIRAL - for evidence let's look back at the discussion on empires. It took a great deal of determination to make an overseas occupation succeed in the past, few countries made it happen for an extended period of time. We can look at most any country and find "great" generals, only in a select few are their admirals successful enough to get equivelant press.

The reason overseas occupations are difficult is because the logistics on LAND is difficult. The sea-bit's the easy bit.